Simmons v. Canarecci et al, No. 3:2009cv00434 - Document 4 (N.D. Ind. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE pursuant to 28 USC 1915A ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 9/23/09. (jld)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION KENNAN D. SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. FRANK CANARECCI, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:09 CV 434 OPINION and ORDER Kennan D. Simmons, a pro se prisoner, submitted a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a complaint, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Courts apply the same standard under § 1915A as when addressing a motion under RULE 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. . . . only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will, as the Court of Appeals observed, be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged but it has not shown that the pleader is entitled to relief. In keeping with these principles a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In explaining this standard, the Seventh Circuit has stated: First, a plaintiff must provide notice to defendants of her claims. Second, courts must accept a plaintiff s factual allegations as true, but some factual allegations will be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice to defendants of the plaintiff s claim. Third, in considering the plaintiff s factual allegations, courts should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements. Brooks v. Ross, No. 08-4286, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 18711, at *15 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2009). 2 In order to state a claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law. Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, Simmons alleges that he was denied access to the law library and denied legal advice from the jail staff because he has an attorney and has not been authorized to use the library by the judge presiding over his State criminal trial. There is no abstract, freestanding right to a law library . . . [and] an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison s law library or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). [A] plaintiff must demonstrate that state action [caused] some actual concrete injury. May v. Sheahan, 226 F.3d 876, 883 (7th Cir. 2000). Here, Simmons has an attorney in his State criminal trial and it would be mere speculation that he has suffered any actual concrete injury as a result of not using the law library. This lawsuit is proof that he is able to gain access to the courts, yet he has not utilized this opportunity to assert a claim for which he can obtain relief. For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. SO ORDERED. DATE: September 23, 2009 s/James T. Moody________________ JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
